Foreign Ministry Legal Department: International force in Gaza could be precedent for Judea and Samaria
A paper prepared by Israel's notoriously Leftist foreign ministry says that the presence of an international force to keep the 'peace' in Gaza could act as a
precedent for a similar force in Judea and Samaria.
The seven-page paper, written by the ministry’s legal department, presents alternative models for the establishment of an international presence or mechanism in the Gaza Strip for the “day after” the fighting ends.
The idea of a multinational force in the West Bank has been raised over the years by the Palestinians and others as a possible solution to Israel’s security concerns if it withdraws from the area. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has consistently opposed the proposals.
The ministry drew up the paper following Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman’s call in the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday to bring a “UN mandate” to Gaza.
...
One option would be a binding Security Council resolution under Chapter VII of the UN Charter that would give an international force enforcement authority and the ability to use force beyond just self-defense purposes to carry out its designated mission. In the case of Gaza, this would necessitate the agreement of the Palestinian Authority, Egypt and Israel and the tacit approval of Hamas.
...
Another model would be under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, where a force would be established that would not have enforcement authority, and would be primarily concerned with supervisory or reportorial roles.
The duties of this type of force would include reporting on ceasefire violations, efforts at demilitarization, supervising rehabilitation of Gaza, reporting on terrorist activity, overseeing humanitarian assistance and institution building.
There are a number of examples of this type of force in the region, such as UNIFIL, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon; UNDOF, the UN Disengagement Observer Force on the Golan: and UNFICYP, the UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus.
Another option is creating a framework outside the UN and agreed upon by the parties. The two examples of this type of arrangement are also taken from the region, the Multinational Force and Observers in Sinai established as part of the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace agreement, and TIPH, the Temporary International Presence in Hebron.
Before deciding which model would be preferable, the paper said that in addition to concern about the precedent such a force would set regarding the West Bank, several other factors needed to be considered.
There are many reasons not to agree to this force.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: EUBAM Rafah, Gaza, Hamas, Israel, Palestinian Authority, UN peacekeeping forces, UNIFIL, use of force
UNDOF 'curtailing' night time patrols
One of the reasons that UNIFIL has been so totally ineffective in preventing Hezbullah from arming itself in southern Lebanon is the fact that they are
too scared to patrol at night.
After last week's
kidnapping on the Golan Heights UNDOF, which 'observes' the peace along our border with Syria, is apparently
heading in the same direction.
The United Nations observers stationed in the Golan Heights have
stopped their night patrols along the Syrian-Israeli cease-fire line.
A
U.N. spokesman said, Tuesday, that over the weekend, after 21
Philippine observers were freed by their Syrian rebel captors, fire was
directed at one of their positions. The spokesman called it a very
difficult place to work.
Once again, it is proven that the value of UN 'peacekeepers' is minimal in the face of Arab and Muslim terrorism. For those who believe that UN or other international 'peacekeepers' would
ensure peace on a border between Israel and a terrorist state of 'Palestine,' please explain why they would be any different than those on our borders with Syria and Lebanon, or for that matter from the peacekeepers who
fled our border with Gaza in 2007 and our
border with Egypt in 1967.
Labels: EUBAM Rafah, Golan Heights, Syria, UN peacekeeping forces, UNDOF, UNIFIL
'Cease fire' in Lebanon 'going well'
If any of you are wondering why an 'international peacekeeping force' isn't going to have any role to play between Israel and the 'Palestinians,' consider
the case of Lebanon.
While he did about the best he could given his situation, Michael Williams, the British diplomat working for the UN in this job, said the UN-sponsored ceasefire that ended the Hizballah-Israel war in 2006 is holding up “very well.”
Technically, this is quite true. There hasn’t been a new war or cross-border attacks. But that’s merely because Hizballah has been too busy taking over Lebanon successfully and preparing for the next war. As Williams admits, arms have flowed to Hizballah (from Syria, though he doesn’t say that). Williams only says that Lebanon’s borders are “porous,” a wonderful diplomatic euphemism for state-sponsored arms smuggling. The Gaza Strip’s borders with Egypt, by the way, have become porous in the same way.
Hizballah has also moved back into southern Lebanon–something the UN was supposed to prevent–and rebuilt its system of tunnels and military strongpoints. In five years, the UN force has never interfered with these Hizballah activities–not once.
Imagine if you will how UN and international guarantees would work with a Palestinian state. Would the General Assembly vote to condemn Palestine for breaking its commitments? Would any foreign “peacekeeping” force that was part of a peace treaty ever act forcefully to stop weapons or terrorists from crossing the border into Palestine? Would they fight to stop terrorists from crossing the border from Palestine into Israel?
I think you all know the answer.
Labels: Hezbullah, UN peacekeeping forces, UN Security Council Resolution 1701, UNIFIL
